[WikiEN-l] You Really Don't Get It

[Todd Allen]

On 4/22/07, Cascadia <cascadia at privatenoc.com> wrote:
> First, Ryulong failed to follow policy. He did not assume good faith, nor
> did he follow WP:SOCK. He arbitrarily made up his mind that these socks were
> the same person, and they were trolling (neither of which was the case and
> should have been evident). On top of this, he blocked the socks with
> autoblock enabled, effectively giving the editors an ultimatum: Out
> themselves or quit the discussion.
>
> Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins
> clean up the mess. This wasn't just a simple mistake as everyone would like
> to believe. This was a serious issue. Too often on Wikipedia admins feel
> they can make such mistakes and everything will be OK when they appologize.
> The action should never have taken place, and the editors and admins
> involved made that quite evident.
>
> No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking
> a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a
> pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have
> that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater).
>
> Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their
> adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should
> never be treated as such by anyone.
>
> -Cascadia
>
> "Todd Allen" <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:2a34d5a90704221744u43596fafk742a81f259206d3a at mail.gmail.com...
> > On 4/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 22/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia at privatenoc.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote
> >> > in
> >> > message
> >> > news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22 at mail.gmail.com...
> >> > > On 22/04/07, Cascadia
> >> > > <cascadia at privatenoc.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> - Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said
> >> > >> this,
> >> > >> but
> >> > >> it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll
> >> > >> throw
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> book at a seasoned editor.
> >>
> >> > > e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking
> >> > > your
> >> > > sockpuppet.
> >>
> >> > If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of
> >> > things
> >> > much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw
> >> > up, I
> >> > would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it
> >> > would be
> >> > admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up
> >> > to
> >> > the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up."
> >> Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> > Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive
> > culture you're envisioning:
> >
> > EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
> >
> > That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the
> > occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of,
> > well, effectively amateurs.
> >
> > If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you
> > wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd
> > bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token,
> > administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean
> > they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human.
> >
> > Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and
> > genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by
> > any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily
> > call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still
> > is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a
> > prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it
> > could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts.
> > There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are
> > true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon.
> >
> > That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish
> > Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But
> > that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a
> > good community is to accept that others -will- have a different
> > viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive,
> > destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to
> > accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The
> > other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are.
> >
> > Seraphimblade
> >
> > --
> > Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Well, I think we should have a more general discussion here, rather
than one specifically on Ryulong. (I think there was already a thread
for that.) Yes, we do need to identify and correct errors, especially
if the person in question is unwilling to acknowledge, correct, or
stop making them.

But what about when the person does acknowledge the error, and fix
and/or apologize for it? Why shouldn't "I'm sorry" be the end of the
story? This is not a life or death situation, no action taken by an
editor or admin is irreversible. We're not talking about open-heart
surgery here, a screwup here is reversible at the push of a button.

I think the main issue here (to sum it up a lot more concisely than I
did before), is that people take things both too seriously and not
seriously enough. They're far too willing to resort to reverting, call
for someone's head, etc.-and not at all willing enough to say "Well,
you know, this guy has provided a good rationale, so while I still
disagree, maybe we should try to work something out that satisfies all
concerns rather than escalating." Usually, that -can- be done, and
results in no heads getting taken off.

Seraphimblade

-- 
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.